ArticleCureus2026
Assessment of Reporting Completeness in Prostate Core Biopsies: A Four-Year Audit From a Tertiary Care Centre (2021-2024).
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate and standardised histopathology reporting of prostate core biopsies is essential for appropriate risk stratification, prognostication, and clinical decision-making in patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma. Adherence to internationally recognised reporting guidelines ensures consistency, completeness, and clinical relevance of pathology reports. Clinical audits serve as an effective quality assurance tool to evaluate reporting practices and identify areas requiring improvement.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the completeness of histopathological reporting of prostate core biopsies diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma at a tertiary care academic hospital, using established international standards as audit benchmarks.
methodsA retrospective clinical audit was conducted in the Histopathology Department of Sultan Qaboos University Hospital. Prostate core biopsy reports issued between January 2021 and December 2024 were retrieved from the laboratory information system. A total of 116 consecutive prostate biopsies were included, comprising both benign and malignant diagnoses. Reporting completeness was evaluated only in the 64 cases diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma. Audit criteria were derived from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Prostate Cancer Protocol (2023 update), the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (2022), and the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus guidelines on Gleason grading. Key parameters assessed included histological tumour type, primary and secondary Gleason patterns, total Gleason score, WHO/ISUP Grade Group, perineural invasion status, tumour percentage per core, and documentation of tissue fragment count. Data were analysed descriptively using counts and proportions.
resultsOf the 116 prostate biopsies reviewed, 52 cases (45%) were benign, and 64 cases (55%) were diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma. All malignant cases (100%) had complete documentation of Gleason grading parameters, reflecting excellent compliance with ISUP recommendations. Histological tumour type was reported in 94% of cases, WHO/ISUP Grade Group in 95%, and perineural invasion status in 97%. Tumour percentage per core was documented in 92% of cases, representing the most frequently omitted parameter. Gross description, including tissue fragment count, was complete in all cases.
conclusionThis audit demonstrates a high level of adherence to international prostate biopsy reporting standards, with minor deficiencies identified in the reporting of tumour extent. Regular audits and targeted interventions may further enhance reporting quality and standardisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.